Skip to content

Some thoughts on rape, sexual violence and protest – responding to responses: Devika Narayan

January 10, 2013

Guest Post by Devika Narayan

Rarely does a city experience the sort of upheaval that Delhi is witnessing.  Everyone is talking about it. Everyone has an opinion. It is impossible to walk down the street without overhearing snatches of conversation. Issues that usually find brief mention in some obscure corner of the newspaper are now being subject to analysis by every passer-by. A rickshaw driver refuses to take any money when he realises I am on my way to a protest. I remember the old man at a photocopy shop who had looked up and asked no one in particular: do you think she will die? The receptionist at the doctor’s clinic is distraught, providing waiting patients her explanation for the recent events. Men huddled around tiny fires littered across the foggy city carp on about the state of politics, the police and the government. Everyone is invested in this moment of reckoning.

An opportunity, in the most brutal manner, has been thrust upon us to challenge, critique and reconstruct unjust social relations. This is an opportunity to pledge our commitment to a vision of a gender just society. Unless we assert in powerful ways that women are autonomous beings and equal citizens it will not end. Unless this moment is taken seriously, unless it is used to interrogate normative structures which insist that women are things to be owned, exchanged and damaged either by the individual, community, state or family the violence will not end.  And yet at the same time these incidents also offer themselves as an opportunity for the proprietors of Indian Culture to reclaim their ownership of women. These Ambassadors of Tradition declare that it is precisely because women attempt to assert their independent will, by walking the streets alone, by choosing their companions, by dressing differently, that they invite violence. Their agenda is to herd women back into the home and purify Indian Society of dangerous ‘external influences’ which might give women the absurd notion that they possess an autonomous agency. However this time given that the raped and murdered woman was not emerging from a pub, alone, or found trespassing the night at an ungodly hour, these voices have been relatively muted. Finally the commander-in-chief of the Embrace-Ancient-Indian-Culture-or-Be-Raped club has spoken up. Mohan Bhagwat the head of the RSS recently said:

“A husband and wife are involved in a contract under which the husband has said that you should take care of my house and I will take care of all your needs. I will keep you safe. So, the husband follows the contract terms. Till the time, the wife follows the contract, the husband stays with her, if the wife violates the contract, he can disown her. Crimes against women happening in urban India are shameful. But such crimes won’t happen in Bharat or the rural areas of the country. You go to villages and forests of the country and there will be no such incidents of gangrape or sex crimes. Besides new legislations, Indian ethos and attitude towards women should be revisited in the context of ancient Indian values. Where Bharat becomes ‘India’ with the influence of western culture, these types of incidents happen.”

Even if one ignores the chauvinism and the crude misogynistic language, the basic thesis that rape occurs due to the erosion of Indian values and is uniquely an urban phenomenon is terribly easy to reject as pure delusion. Anyone with an iota of insight can demonstrate that rape, violence and discrimination against women far from being extraneous, is the cornerstone of the culture that the RSS claims to preserve. It is a culture that has institutionalised violence against women as a means of communal and castist retaliation, a method which employs women’s bodies as ammunition in an infinite different battles. The same culture, to which rape according to Bhagwat is foreign, possesses no language to even conceive of marital rape. J.R. Aryan a district judge in Delhi says, “IPC does not recognise any such concept of marital rape. If complainant was a legally wedded wife of accused, the sexual intercourse with her by accused would not constitute offence of rape even if it was by force or against her wishes.” If anything it is the concept of consensual sex that is alien, not rape.

Ashis Nandy, when asked for his response to Bhagwat’s assertion that rape is the result of ‘westernisation’ says, “I don’t know what he meant by western values but what I can tell you is that there is a connection between modernisation, westernisation and rape not just in India but all over the world.” He goes on to say that “in one sense Mohan Bhagwat in not wrong” as there will be an increase in the instances of rape in cities. Nandy remarks that this kind of ‘anomic’ rape is combined with violence and is characteristic of highly individualised, anonymous locations where kinship and community ties have weakened. It is strange that Nandy would choose to provide his intellectual services to this Hindutva leader by conferring upon him the benefits of a respectable sociological theory. He selectively receives and processes Bhagwat’s insights using theories of modernisation, making the views more palatable, and apparently academically accurate. The dubious link between weakening kinship ties and an increase in rape is conveniently left unexplained. What is clear is Bhagwat did not mean that it is the anonymity of metropolitan areas which causes rape. He was not offering an analysis of urbanisation and its links to gender based violence (for that we have another renowned sociologist named Raj Thackeray who has constructed an elaborate theory of migration, identity and violence). The RSS chief was simply implying that ‘western’ values prompted the unmarried murdered woman to catch the evening show with a man and therefore invited an attack. Time and time again we have heard of how modern urban India is teeming with slutty, westernised, loose women who actively ask to be raped and murdered. This is not a theory of social change but bigotry of the highest order. Even if Nandy was trying to act as an innocuous translator to Bhagwat’s idiocy he does an awful job. Why he would even attempt to benignly repackage his statements remains a mystery.

Any effort to suggest that rape is exclusively indigenous to a particular culture, community or region must be discarded. Violence against women is endemic. It is not an exotic ritual that the uncivilised third world practices as some commentators in the developed countries of the North would believe and neither is it unique to the modern, urban, ‘westernised’ India as the marketing department of Indian Tradition proclaims. Other groups also fracture this struggle against sexual violence by enforcing boundaries around the issue.  A few stray voices of the left have disengaged with this issue by arguing that the turmoil in Delhi is solely a ‘middle class’ issue and therefore unworthy of serious attention. In its misplaced search for authentic struggles fought by authentic victims, these sections undermine efforts to bring together the different experiences of gendered discrimination. We need to think of constructive ways to speak of the shared experience of oppression rather than rigidly uphold divisions between ‘types’ of rape: urban rape, rural rape, middle class rape, working class rape, modern rape, traditional rape, marital rape, live-in rape…where does this classificatory scheme end? Rape is rape. Everywhere it is an assertion of power and a violent attempt to subjugate. Most often rape is a means to an end, a means to put someone or some community ‘in their place’. The perpetrators this time too are quoted to have said that they were teaching the victim a lesson for daring to resist them. Even if it was the middle classes that took to the streets, how does this mere fact undercut the larger battle against misogyny? Thousands of women are taking a stand. People are rethinking their friendships because of sexist comments made by male friends, comments that one is usually inured to. An online comment reads, “It’s like people who are our friends for the longest time have no respect for anyone but their own mothers and sisters. One of my friends made a joke about Sania Mirza being gangraped by the whole Pakistani team. When I made him aware of how derogatory the joke was he said I was overreacting and asked if I was on my period. How on earth can we blame politicians and rural citizens when these idiots are our own friends? I am so ashamed to call them friends.” These subtle, intangible shifts in the way individuals appraise their own lives and immediate environments seem like insignificant inflections but they do count. They expose hypocrisy and they help create bridges between the limiting parameters of individual experience. They create at least the possibility of a solidarity that cuts across caste, class and region, a solidity that can protest violence against women in an up-market bar, in police states like Manipur and in the homes of a million families.  Of course there are differences. One cannot ignore the interpenetrated axes of marginality that force some women to carry the burden of not just gender but caste and class based oppression, however, one can also affirm the need for a collective struggle.

Devika Narayan, is an activist with the New Socialist Initiative and has been active in the struggle against patriarchy in Delhi

8 Comments leave one →
  1. January 10, 2013 7:37 PM

    The statements of people like Bhagwat or Asaram Bapu, or any of our politicians who assign the causality of rape other than where it is, i.e., in the nature of the patriarchal political and moral-economy, are exercising a defense of the very same structure. There recourse to obscurantism, to mythology of the ‘Bharat’, etc. are tools to steer the debate away from the tangible, real question of violence against women. And it is indeed unfortunate that scholars like Nandy justify the garbage spewed by fundamentalists in sociological lexicon.

    To argue on the same plane as someone like Bhagwat, is fraught with problems; for instance, if we do point out the cases of rapes against Dalits and lower caste women in the rural space what he terms as ‘Bharat’, the defense employed by the Hindu right will be a denial that it is rape – it is, as Shuddhabrata Sengupta put it, it is “yugya”. The misrepresentation of rape – and this is a purposeful act, mind you – is the deployment of the patriarchal moral-economy in perpetuating the culture of violence.

    And this just so happens to be one of the many tools deployed by the patriarchal governance mechanism to police not just women, but all forms of bodies, including that of men; which is why the area of the formulation of masculinity, or a particular type of masculinity (upper-caste, upper-class, Hindu…) is also the operationalization of misogyny. This is something people like Nandy fail to see (although, being familiar with his works, and his general disdain for the west and modernity, it’s rather unsurprising that he interpreted Bhagwat’s statement the way he did).

    The extent to which rape is trivialized bothers me as well; an earlier Kafila post, by Snehalata Gupta on patriarchy in the classroom, illustrates this with a great degree of reflexivity and crtiticality. However, in the comments on that post, there was a very discernible, linear trajectory of thought that assigned the blame squarely on the family or the home space. I have a problem with this kind of thinking. Sure, I mean, the home space in a patriarchy is one of the sites where masculinity-femininity, and by extension, misogyny is produced; but I have seen a great number of misogynist idiots whose parents are rather amiable, and respectable, and at times, quite disgusted at the conduct of their sons. Clearly, misogyny or this culture of violence is produced on a number of sites, peer group socialization, education, and politics being other important ones (these insights I draw from my observations).

    I think Kafila and it’s writers are doing a brilliant job in pushing for such nuanced understandings of an issue that the larger Indian public, despite it being galvanized, chooses to ignore, or chooses to not engage in. Let’s hope we manage to rectify that deficiency somehow.

    Oh, I’d like the opportunity to share my own thoughts which I have discussed at length on my blog [Link: http://thepositivecynicinc.blogspot.in/2013/01/a-culture-of-violence.html%5D. Comments, criticisms, feedback on it, are most welcome.

    Cheers.

    • Mahalakshmi permalink
      February 21, 2013 12:51 AM

      I take issue with the generalizing nature of a comment in the article suggesting rape is rape no matter it’s marital rape or any other kind. I agree with the above response that the sites of vience are important. To mitigate gender violence we need to understand and communicate the nature of violence against women across different spaces — rape in an alleyway, a university campus or a moving bus is different than sexual violence within the space of marriage and family. Marital rape is a necessary category. It is never reported, children bear silent witnesses and most importantly our judicial system is yet to dissect the family/marriage system to address gender based violence outside the context of a legal separation/divorce. The family/marriage system is too readily seen as organic and sacrosanct. Marital rape never becomes a crime. That needs to change.

  2. tnjoyi permalink
    January 10, 2013 8:31 PM

    //our fury and sorrow are ours and now – a public property tooo.. jyothi sing pandey belongs, to…- where??? her family /only to her friend s who know her personally?.. some thing irritating is ther in the legal or medea quarrels… ther is after all something in the name… if u are not interested in watching.only..— how can u ignore the single spark that was ignited in delhi-? its impact much more- than normal endorsement politics can endure! so away with the anxieties coming frm morethangood- family values . its pride .. its delicacy at poltical upheavals… goingpublic some pervertesdand untimelu notions about privacy- etc… name the culprits and with that.. the victims too…. situation demands,, that,, fury of the street that shook india last week — DESERVES THAT/ adieue,,, jyoty singh pandey;;;;————————2//— need a survey,,, on confessions frm us men… and till then- suspend the old sex lib slogan ,, “”SEX WITH CONSENT__’ fr some time…the slogan attracts more men and invite – perhaps women to the market!/……..fed up with those endorsement lies, of us men.. and coping strategies of women too!- who are forced to iive in and on lies .–happily in the mens’ world! NOW,away with rheterics,, and half baked . emotion free academics! ______________________________________________________________________________3//frutful intervention- seems above my talents—- events flooding– inability of a single individual to capture all – parellel processing–””- social net works and and the fuming street—————————————————–4/// YESpunitive justice- I think is not a panecia to all the crimes committed in the world/. govindachami , and co. they desrve what///? our kerala feminist friends- today, yes , today itself when rajesh(30)sentenced to death. owes us a response… ranjini…. some crisis of endorsement politics is there,,, we are no party to hanging,, hangman is a machinelike.. moralresponsibility lies elsewhere,, y and what we r are waiting for? when will the mud slinging among our friends begins”””? sorry. now I am totally confused , when I started to scribble this— iwas confident- ican save my face(sic)… despite my view on punitive justice, NOW! I return back,, a failed beauty consultant,,, trying to walk with anti death penaltists. and hunting with the justifiable petals of fury…..HA HA.————————————————————————-when street is fuminG, it willb impolite to siT back and reflect??. now who is afraid of the iron will of the delhi . anti rape fury..?. now every one seems waiting fr an ebb; keeping their pet theories,– politically correct of course…—to thir heart and brain!!! this beauty consultant too has some thing to proclaim!! ”. WHEN SUKAMUNI WALKED ALONGSIDE THE POND WHER WOMEN WERE BATHING, . NOTHING HAPPENED, but his dad vasishta passed thru,, every one dipped themselves deep into water..”…- unquote-/ when you exude some rapist energy – only potential victims flee. so the only ones who i are not to b afraid of – may b 1- men celibates2- homosexuals and the one slike me with lost erection….. but the slogan ” sex with consent” even@ this hard times turn me on– AMIGOS,,how moch men friendly! these post emergency, children- innoscent of the reaction frm men – potential rapists!!!!…. sorry ranjiny ; fr this shit post- as geetha would say ;perhaps,, ha ha TYPOS MAINTAINED( to be continued- some variAtions on the theme of SEXUALITY- RAPE- DEATH PENALTY AND MASS PSYCHOLOGY OF FASCISM…..)

  3. Nafisa permalink
    January 10, 2013 10:40 PM

    Very well written. Totally voices the opinion of balanced and sane minds. I have to mention, that while the country was supposedly “outraged” and were protesting, the tweets of people talking about how “11 men were gang raped” by the host team or the guest team, as they won/lost the matches, was sickening. How can gang rape and rape be used so casually? I’m sure these people were also supporting the outrage and getting after the government in protest.
    I must also add that Aamir Khan and the whole team of the 3 idiots are t blame for making “rape” a joke. Rape can never be a joke. Its a heinous crime. The sad part is that the country found the movie fantastic, and roared with laughter on this traumatic ugly word. One of the reasons that it is used so casually, and people might even be immune to the horrific implications of the trauma of rape, Unless it happens to ones own.

  4. andyddavies permalink
    January 10, 2013 11:07 PM

    Reblogged this on Andy Davies's Blog and commented:
    A great post here reflecting on the Delhi Gang rape and the wider issues of gender injustice in India

  5. January 11, 2013 1:13 PM

    “Any effort to suggest that rape is exclusively indigenous to a particular culture, community or region must be discarded.”
    Discarded on what grounds? As a trained sociologist and social psychologist who has studied social inequalities in several cultures, I cannot quite agree with this assumption. Violence against women IS cultural. So is violence against other people, of the basis of their inherited and imbibed class/hierarchy.

    In the matriarchial Khasi culture for instance, the issue of domestic violence was pretty much unheard of, since tradtional norms of masculinity didn’t exist. However, over the last few years, thanks to the indocrination of Christianity and their own dishonesty, a lot of women’s groups in Meghalaya have been calling for tying men to the traditional gender role of providing for their family, making a lifetime commitment to institutionalised monogamy and asking for child support from ‘deadbeat dads’. Hence, we have started to witness families where men are forced to be heads of the household and a (regrettably) proportionate rise in domestic violence. ‘Indian inverted’ have started to become more like India (except that women still inherit family property while men are forced to work hard to buy their own, like I did).

    You could try reading Warren Farrell’s “The Myth of Male Power” for a greater insight into the warped nature of civilisations that create sexually and socially predatory men who abuse their wives, children or people in general. Denying that cultural factors play into domestic violence and that that is it some ‘endemic’ pathological problem is being intellectually selective and dishonest.

  6. January 13, 2013 3:59 PM

    anhilaal *: Without Questioning Civilization You Can Not Question Patriarchy (January 2013)

    Delhi Gang Rape Case, Two Quotations and SCUM Manifesto, 1967

    The Incident

    Police in the Indian capital say they have arrested a fifth person in connection with the gang rape on a bus of a young woman on Sunday. For more see here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-20807526 (21.12.2012)

    ————————————————————–

    1. Camille Paglia, anti-feminist literary theorist, meditates thusly on civilization and women:
    “When I see a giant crane passing on a flatbed truck, I pause in awe and reverence, as one would for a church procession. What power of conception: what grandiosity: these cranes tie us to ancient Egypt, where monumental architecture was first imagined and achieved. If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts.” [1]

    The “glories” of civilization and women’s disinterest in them. To some of us the “grass huts” represent not taking the wrong path, that of oppression and destructiveness. In light of the globally metastasizing death-drive of technological civilization, if only we still lived in grass huts !

    Women and nature are universally devalued by the dominant paradigm and who cannot see what this has wrought ? Ursula Le Guin gives us a healthy corrective to Paglia’s dismissal of both: “Civilized Man says: I am Self, I am Master, all the rest is other — outside, below, underneath, subservient. I own, I use, I explore, I exploit, I control. What I do is what matters. What I want is what matter is for. I am that I am, and the rest is women and wilderness, to be used as I see fit.” [2] …[...] Gayle Rubin concludes that the “world-historical defeat of women occurred with the origins of culture and is a prerequisite of culture.” [22]

    Source: http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/john-zerzan-patriarchy-civilization-and-the-origins-of-gender, 2010 (?)

    2. Whenever Jarwas were attacked by the settlers from mainland India, there were
    invariably cases of rape and molestations of Jarwa women. In retaliation, whenever settlers´ colonies were attacked by Jarwas, there was not a single case of rape or molestation of settlers´ women till date.

    Quoted from memory from The Land of Naked People : Encounters with Stone Age Islanders by Madhusree Mukerjee (2003)

    3. S.C.U.M. Manifesto (Society for Cutting Up Men)
    by Valerie Solanas, 1967

    Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and destroy the male sex.
    It is now technically feasible to reproduce without the aid of males (or, for that matter, females) and to produce only females. We must begin immediately to do so. Retaining the mail has not even the dubious purpose of reproduction. The male is a biological accident: the Y (male) gene is an incomplete X (female) gene, that is, it has an incomplete set of chromosomes. In other words, the male is an incomplete female, a walking abortion, aborted at the gene stage. To be male is to be deficient, emotionally limited; maleness is a deficiency disease and males are emotional cripples.
    The male is completely egocentric, trapped inside himself, incapable of empathizing or identifying with others, or love, friendship, affection of tenderness. He is a completely isolated unit, incapable of rapport with anyone. His responses are entirely visceral, not cerebral; his intelligence is a mere tool in the services of his drives and needs; he is incapable of mental passion, mental interaction; he can’t relate to anything other than his own physical sensations. He is a half-dead, unresponsive lump, incapable of giving or receiving pleasure or happiness; consequently, he is at best an utter bore, an inoffensive blob, since only those capable of absorption in others can be charming. He is trapped in a twilight zone halfway between humans and apes, and is far worse off than the apes because, unlike the apes, he is capable of a large array of negative feelings — hate, jealousy, contempt, disgust, guilt, shame, doubt — and moreover, he is aware of what he is and what he isn’t.
    [.......]
    2. Supply the non-relating male with the delusion of usefulness, and enable him to try to justify his existence by digging holes and then filling them up. Leisure time horrifies the male, who will have nothing to do but contemplate his grotesque self. Unable to relate or to love, the male must work. Females crave absorbing, emotionally satisfying, meaningful activity, but lacking the opportunity or ability for this, they prefer to idle and waste away their time in ways of their own choosing — sleeping, shopping, bowling, shooting pool, playing cards and other games, breeding, reading, walking around, daydreaming, eating, playing with themselves, popping pills, going to the movies, getting analyzed, traveling, raising dogs and cats, lolling about on the beach, swimming, watching TV, listening to music, decorating their houses, gardening, sewing, nightclubbing, dancing, visiting, `improving their minds’ (taking courses), and absorbing `culture’ (lectures, plays, concerts, `arty’ movies). Therefore, many females would, even assuming complete economic equality between the sexes, prefer living with males or peddling their asses on the street, thus having most of their time for themselves, to spending many hours of their days doing boring, stultifying, non-creative work for someone else, functioning as less than animals, as machines, or, at best — if able to get a `good’ job — co-managing the shitpile. What will liberate women, therefore, from male control is the total elimination of the money-work system, not the attainment of economic equality with men within it.

    3. Power and control. Unmasterful in his personal relations with women, the male attains to masterfulness by the manipulation of money and everything controlled by money, in other words, of everything and everybody.

    4. Love substitute. Unable to give love or affection, the male gives money. It makes him feel motherly. The mother gives milk; he gives bread. He is the Breadwinner.

    5. Provide the male with a goal. Incapable of enjoying the moment, the male needs something to look forward to, and money provides him with an eternal, never-ending goal: Just think of what you could do with 80 trillion dollars — invest it! And in three years time you’d have 300 trillion dollars!!!

    6. Provide the basis for the male’s major opportunity to control and manipulate — fatherhood.

    Fatherhood and Mental Illness (fear, cowardice, timidity, humility, insecurity, passivity): Mother wants what’s best for her kids; Daddy only wants what’s best for Daddy, that is peace and quiet, pandering to his delusion of dignity (`respect’), a good reflection on himself (status) and the opportunity to control and manipulate, or, if he’s an `enlightened’ father, to `give guidance’. His daughter, in addition, he wants sexually — he givers her hand in marriage; the other part is for him. Daddy, unlike Mother, can never give in to his kids, as he must, at all costs, preserve his delusion of decisiveness, forcefulness, always-rightness and strength. Never getting one’s way leads to lack of self-confidence in one’s ability to cope with the world and to a passive acceptance of the status quo. Mother loves her kids, although she sometimes gets angry, but anger blows over quickly and even while it exists, doesn’t preclude love and basic acceptance. Emotionally diseased Daddy doesn’t love his kids; he approves of them — if they’re `good’, that is, if they’re nice, `respectful’, obedient, subservient to his will, quiet and not given to unseemly displays of temper that would be most upsetting to Daddy’s easily disturbed male nervous system — in other words, if they’re passive vegetables. If they’re not `good’, he doesn’t get angry — not if he’s a modern, `civilized’ father (the old-fashioned ranting, raving brute is preferable, as he is so ridiculous he can be easily despised) — but rather express disapproval, a state that, unlike anger, endures and precludes a basic acceptance, leaving the kid with the feeling of worthlessness and a lifelong obsession wit being approved of; the result is fear of independent thought, as this leads to unconventional, disapproved of opinions and way of life.

    For the kid to want Daddy’s approval it must respect Daddy, and being garbage, Daddy can make sure that he is respected only by remaining aloof, by distantness, by acting on the precept of `familiarity breeds contempt’, which is, of course, true, if one is contemptible. By being distant and aloof, he is able to remain unknown, mysterious, and thereby, to inspire fear (`respect’).

    Disapproval of emotional `scenes’ leads to fear of strong emotion, fear of one’s own anger and hatred. Fear of anger and hatred combined with a lack of self-confidence in one’s ability to cope with and change the world, or even to affect in the slightest way one’s own destiny, leads to a mindless belief that the world and most people in it are nice and the most banal, trivial amusements are great fun and deeply pleasurable.

    The affect of fatherhood on males, specifically, is to make them `Men’, that is, highly defensive of all impulses to passivity, faggotry, and of desires to be female. Every boy wants to imitate his mother, be her, fuse with her, but Daddy forbids this; he is the mother; he gets to fuse with her. So he tells the boy, sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly, to not be a sissy, to act like a `Man’. The boy, scared shitless of and `respecting’ his father, complies, and becomes just like Daddy, that model of `Man’-hood, the all-American ideal — the well-behaved heterosexual dullard.

    The effect of fatherhood on females is to make them male — dependent, passive, domestic, animalistic, insecure, approval and security seekers, cowardly, humble, `respectful’ of authorities and men, closed, not fully responsive, half-dead, trivial, dull, conventional, flattened-out and thoroughly contemptible. Daddy’s Girl, always tense and fearful, uncool, unanalytical, lacking objectivity, appraises Daddy, and thereafter, other men, against a background of fear (`respect’) and is not only unable to see the empty shell behind the facade, but accepts the male definition of himself as superior, as a female, and of herself, as inferior, as a male, which, thanks to Daddy, she really is.

    It is the increase of fatherhood, resulting from the increased and more widespread affluence that fatherhood needs in order to thrive, that has caused the general increase of mindlessness and the decline of women in the United States since the 1920s. The close association of affluence with fatherhood has led, for the most part, to only the wrong girls, namely, the `privileged’ middle class girls, getting `educated’.
    The effect of fathers, in sum, has been to corrode the world with maleness. The male has a negative Midas Touch — everything he touches turns to shit.

    Suppression of Individuality, Animalism (domesticity and motherhood), and Functionalism: The male is just a bunch of conditioned reflexes, incapable of a mentally free response; he is tied to he earliest conditioning, determined completely by his past experiences. His earliest experiences are with his mother, and he is throughout his life tied to her. It never becomes completely clear to the make that he is not part of his mother, that he is he and she is she.

    His greatest need is to be guided, sheltered, protected and admired by Mama (men expect women to adore what men shrink from in horror — themselves) and, being completely physical, he yearns to spend his time (that’s not spent `out in the world’ grimly defending against his passivity) wallowing in basic animal activities — eating, sleeping, shitting, relaxing and being soothed by Mama. Passive, rattle-headed Daddy’s Girl, ever eager for approval, for a pat on the head, for the `respect’ if any passing piece of garbage, is easily reduced to Mama, mindless ministrator to physical needs, soother of the weary, apey brow, booster of the tiny ego, appreciator of the contemptible, a hot water bottle with tits.

    The reduction to animals of the women of the most backward segment of society — the `privileged, educated’ middle-class, the backwash of humanity — where Daddy reigns supreme, has been so thorough that they try to groove on labour pains and lie around in the most advanced nation in the world in the middle of the twentieth century with babies chomping away on their tits. It’s not for the kids sake, though, that the `experts’ tell women that Mama should stay home and grovel in animalism, but for Daddy’s; the tits for Daddy to hang onto; the labor pains for Daddy to vicariously groove on (half dead, he needs awfully strong stimuli to make him respond).
    Reducing the female to an animal, to Mama, to a male, is necessary for psychological as well as practical reasons: the male is a mere member of the species, interchangeable with every other male. He has no deep-seated individuality, which stems from what intrigues you, what outside yourself absorbs you, what you’re in relation to. Completely self-absorbed, capable of being in relation only to their bodies and physical sensations, males differ from each other only to the degree and in the ways they attempt to defend against their passivity and against their desire to be female.

    The female’s individuality, which he is acutely aware of, but which he doesn’t comprehend and isn’t capable of relating to or grasping emotionally, frightens and upsets him and fills him with envy. So he denies it in her and proceeds to define everyone in terms of his or her function or use, assigning to himself, of course, the most important functions — doctor, president, scientist — therefore providing himself with an identity, if not individuality, and tries to convince himself and women (he’s succeeded best at convincing women) that the female function is to bear and raise children and to relax, comfort and boost the ego if the male; that her function is such as to make her interchangeable with every other female. In actual fact, the female function is to relate, groove, love and be herself, irreplaceable by anyone else; the male function is to produce sperm. We now
    have sperm banks.
    In actual fact, the female function is to explore, discover, invent, solve problems crack jokes, make music — all with love. In other words, create a magic world.

    [..................]

    Competition, Prestige, Status, Formal Education, Ignorance and Social and Economic Classes: Having an obsessive desire to be admired by women, but no intrinsic worth, the make constructs a highly artificial society enabling him to appropriate the appearance of worth through money, prestige, `high’ social class, degrees, professional position and knowledge and, by pushing as many other men as possible down professionally, socially, economically, and educationally.
    The purpose of `higher’ education is not to educate but to exclude as many as possible from the various professions.
    The male, totally physical, incapable of mental rapport, although able to understand and use knowledge and ideas, is unable to relate to them, to grasp them emotionally: he does not value knowledge and ideas for their own sake (they’re just means to ends) and, consequently, feels no need for mental companions, no need to cultivate the intellectual potentialities of others. On the contrary, the male has a vested interest in ignorance; it gives the few knowledgeable men a decided edge on the unknowledgeable ones, and besides, the male knows that an enlightened, aware female population will mean the end of him. The healthy, conceited female wants the company of equals whom she can respect and groove on; the male and the sick, insecure, unself-confident male female crave the company of worms.
    No genuine social revolution can be accomplished by the male, as the male on top wants the status quo, and all the male on the bottom wants is to be the male on top. The male `rebel’ is a farce; this is the male’s `society’, made by him to satisfy his needs. He’s never satisfied, because he’s not capable of being satisfied. Ultimately, what the male `rebel’ is rebelling against is being male. The male changes only when forced to do so by technology, when he has no choice, when `society’ reaches the stage where he must change or die. We’re at that stage now; if women don’t get their asses in gear fast, we may very well all die.

    [........................]

    Sexuality: Sex is not part of a relationship: on the contrary, it is a solitary experience, non-creative, a gross waste of time. The female can easily — far more easily than she may think — condition away her sex drive, leaving her completely cool and cerebral and free to pursue truly worthy relationships and activities; but the male, who seems to dig women sexually and who seeks out constantly to arouse them, stimulates the highly sexed female to frenzies of lust, throwing her into a sex bag from which few women ever escape. The lecherous male excited the lustful female; he has to — when the female transcends her body, rises above animalism, the male, whose ego consists of his cock, will disappear.
    Sex is the refuge of the mindless. And the more mindless the woman, the more deeply embedded in the male `culture’, in short, the nicer she is, the more sexual she is. The nicest women in our `society’ are raving sex maniacs. But, being just awfully, awfully nice, they don’t, of course descend to fucking — that’s uncouth — rather they make love, commune by means of their bodies and establish sensual rapport; the literary ones are attuned to the throb of Eros and attain a clutch upon the Universe; the religious have spiritual communion with the Divine Sensualism; the mystics merge with the Erotic Principle and blend with the Cosmos, and the acid heads contact their erotic cells.

    [.................]

    The sick, irrational men, those who attempt to defend themselves against their disgustingness, when they see SCUM barrelling down on them, will cling in terror to Big Mama with her Big Bouncy Boobies, but Boobies won’t protect them against SCUM; Big Mama will be clinging to Big Daddy, who will be in the corner shitting in his forceful, dynamic pants. Men who are rational, however, won’t kick or struggle or raise a distressing fuss, but will just sit back, relax, enjoy the show and ride the waves to their demise.

    For the whole text SCUM Manifesto go to : http://www.womynkind.org/scum.htm

    ———————————————————————————————————-

    Circulated for discussion among Workers and Wage Workers by http://www.anhilaal.com

    Released by: anhilaal* : Coalition against Work, Career, Representation and Civilization in South Asia
    ( CAWCRC).

    Disclaimer: All the members of the coalition agree on questioning Work, Career, Representation and Civilization as new and relevant points of departure. However, they might attach different meanings to the same key terms.

    Websites : http://www.anhilaal.com

    http://faridabadmajdoorsamachar.blogspot.de

    http://www.johnzerzan.net

    Contact us :
    sukhadeve.vilas@gmail.com (Vilas Sukhadeve)
    ranjanvinay@yahoo.co.in (Vinay Ranjan )
    baatein1@yahoo.co.uk ( Faridabad Majdoor Samachar)
    gangadin_lohar@yahoo.co.in (Gangadin Lohar)

    Phone:
    +91 9822880834 (Vilas Sukhadeve)
    +91 9870563558 (Vinay Ranjan )
    +91 129 6567014 (Faridabad Majdoor Samachar)
    —————————–

    Disclaimer: All the members of the coalition agree on questioning Work, Career, Representation and Civilization as new and relevant points of departure. However, they might attach different meanings to the same key terms.
    ———————————————————————————————————————————————–

    * On anhilaal :

    At the centre of the term hilaal is the infinitive: hilaanaa . In many South Asian languages it means to move, to shake something. An, the prefix, stands for negation.
    The name is based on a belief about some tribal groups from eastern India. Early morning before going to work at the field of moneylender or landlord, s/he shakes haandi with her toe. If the haandi refuses to move s/he also refuses to move. So long there is rice in the haandi, s/he shall not move to work. So we are.
    Primary aim of dominating social cultural norms, civilization, state, market and revolution is to bring two poles of work and worker together. If society and state have to function normally, then they have to be Brought Together. However, like two north poles of different magnets they get away from each other more easily than coming together.

    The Distinction between Work and Human Activity
    Singing, dancing, playing, hospitality are simple human activities. As soon as these activities turn into source of our livelihood, they become work. Instead of playing a game it becomes our career. It becomes potentially a part of Sports Industry. Singing and dancing become Entertainment Industry. Hospitality becomes Hospitality Management. History of Civilization is the history of turning more and more human activities into work (-flows).

    When it is about celebrating festivals and communal activities, like the tribal communities , our energy knows no bounds. At the end of the day what elites called civilization was work for ( in the true sense, against ) us. What else is the impersonal, organized power and violence other than impersonal, oorganized control over our work and its products ? We are against all work-pyramids covertly operating in the name of countries, companies, parties, families and identities. We are for self-determined human activities which is not possible without abolition of our existence as wage-workers or serfs. We are for non-hijackable, non-hierarchical and coercion-free communities. Hence the name Coalition Against Work, Representation and Civilization in South Asia: anhilaal (CAWRC).

  7. January 13, 2013 6:38 PM

    “The dubious link between weakening kinship ties and an increase in rape is conveniently left unexplained.”

    The way a man (or woman) sees ‘our women’ vis a vis ‘women’ is very different. People who comes to cities as immigrants do not connect with the city as soon as one may wish for. For them, women there are not ‘their women’ and they are viewed with different type of eye. This is perhaps what Nandy meant by his observation.

    Someone who has grown up in a village, I can say with certain confidence that women are much more unsafe (and much more free to move) than they are in villages or certain location in cities like Kolkata, Mumbai or Chennai where kinship relations are still strong. Delhi is a different city, its very hard tp find a family there which is more than one generation delhiates. Youth may have acquired an idendity of being ‘Delhites’.

We look forward to your comments. Comments are subject to moderation as per our comments policy. They may take some time to appear.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 57,134 other followers

%d bloggers like this: